GameLord08

@Damo: Opinion is neither here nor there, Damien. The only reason provided for their decision that does not amount to speculation is here in this very news piece.

As far as we can objectively tell, Nintendo eliminated online play merely to promote local multiplayer. We both know that Nintendo had a host of other options to promote the suggested method of play (for Mario, no less), yet they chose to enact this by actively restricting the player from connectivity. That is hardly sensible in this generation.

It is not the lack of online play that is frustrating; it's the reasoning behind it. Removing a feature that is widely optional to begin with does not, in any form or manner, impact a game's potential for the better. It can only be seen as an aversion of marketing in this instance.

@Damo: No, you've totally and utterly missed the analogy in my comment. I was insinuating that embracing connectivity is a key advancement in parallel with the physical aspects of a console.

It makes no sense coercing people to "relive the NES experience" on a console with all the bells and whistles of today. Online multiplayer is no less optional than local multiplayer; it is the player's prerogative to determine how they want to play.

HD visuals and a wireless touchscreen are anything but the NES experience.

"Inspired."

Personally, I think he's trying (and failing) to articulate that Nintendo doesn't realise itself as being competitive in the hardware space, and exhibits a sort of 'isolationism' towards the industry compared to Sony and Microsoft.

In any case, it's clear that "irrelevant" wasn't the most appropriate choice of words. He himself is most likely aware by now.

He's under a lot of stress right now as E3 is fast approaching, and this is his most important chance to publicise Bayonetta 2 and The Wonderful 101 as efficiently as possible. Even in his tweets, he's frequently mentioned how busy he is trying to organise things. Stress takes its toll at some point, you know.

Sure, it was rather rude, but if you ask me, people ought to just realise when to back the heck off. And not make a media overreaction out of it, at that. All this is juvenile.

Nice review, Katy.

This game is so close I'm actually streaming tears right now, omg. ;___;

Naturally, somebody has to bring up the Wii U's "victimisation", when it clearly states that none of the next-gen consoles will be seeing a release, neither the 3DS or Vita in addition.

On topic, I don't quite understand why they deem it best not to release it on any of these consoles, to be frank. Seems primeval to me, but I suppose they're the ones with the sales goal to achieve.

Well, maybe it's to early to determine the amount of potential interest on PS4/XBOne, while the Wii U, 3DS and Vita seem to lack considerable consumer interest (consumers in general for both the Wii U and Vita, actually).

Ace.

Been looking to try my first Harvest Moon game, so I might pick this up alongside Animal Crossing: New Leaf. To date, I've been continually dissuaded by its impression as a run-of-the-mill farming sim, but it seems this review has given me adequate assurance that there's more to the overall game.

We'll see, Sega.

Nintendo doesn't need third parties? Excuse me, I need to get Mythbusters on the phone.

Probably keeping a close eye on the console's performance, especially nearing E3.

The mobile market is vastly incomparable to that of current consoles at the moment, let alone the Wii U. In fact, mobile development is one of EA's strongest and most profitable divisions and has been for eons; how is this even surprising?

They're only investing in a more sensible and promising market, i.e. not the Wii U.

It's a successful handheld indeed, but certainly not the best it could've been.

Performance-wise, it's doing well in my eyes but I do think there's a lot of room for improvement. With its current insights, I still don't see it measuring up to the DS' legacy for now. However, I will say it has built up a considerable library to date so at least that's a relief from its initial reception.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure The Sun was aiming for sensationalism with that hyperbolé of a title. We should all be able to agree that the 3DS is not yet eligible to be "the best console ever".

@OptometristLime: Haha. Though in any case, who exactly would willingly pick up a copy of The Sun?

Recently got into watching Adventure Time, and I must say I adore it. I'm still a little sceptical when it comes to video-game spin-offs of TV series though, so I'll have to wait for a little bit more information on this one.

On a side-note, the majority of you all really ought to find other ways to comment on your disdain of "Nintendo haters", because taking petty jabs at one of the video-game industry's most legendary (yes, legendary) designers is not one of them. It's incredibly shallow and unintelligent.

His opinion is still held with regard, whether or not it's the one you want to hear.

Please read, people. Nobody is saying that consoles should be replaced by smartphones/tablets; he's just saying Mario should make an appearance on mobile platforms. And I agree with him.

Iwata himself has stated that smartphones and tablets can and should be used as allies within the "mainstream" industry - take branding and endorsements, for example. Many leading developers in the industry (EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, SEGA etc.) have taken to outsourcing their IPs on to mobile platforms (take a look at the success of Rayman Jungle Run and Sonic CD, for example). Does that mean they have abandoned their efforts on consoles entirely? No - it is nothing more than a (considerably effective) marketing strategy, especially seeing how diverse and expansive an audience mobile platforms have over conventional ones.

Even take a look at the performance of apps such as the Zombi U and Pokédex ones on iOS. It's a prospect Nintendo hasn't exactly spoken out against, so even they must be aware there's a reason for consideration. Take little games like Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move - I think games in those essence would do lovely on smartphones/tablets (especially with its controls), and give Nintendo's products more awareness outside our niche little community.

Nobody's saying we ought to see Super Mario Galaxy or anything in that vein on the iPad; it's just an opportunity to expand Nintendo's appeal in little ways.

Still undecided whether to get Pokémon X or Y, but I'm leaning more towards Y at the moment.

Bah, who cares?! The game looks awesome either way.

Why do you taunt us like this, Jon? _{June can't come soon enough. ;___;}

(thumbs up)

He hasn't made a reversal of his previous statement at all; you all just started jumping to conclusions over something with as little context as a single sentence from an interview.

Besides, Price still hasn't clarified whether or not his statement on the Wii U not being "next-gen" concerns the tech/hardware or other reasoning. Contrary to popular belief, people do have different interpretations of the label.

@theblackdragon: Nothing that I'm willing to take up with anybody, actually. I'm just surprised at such an openly contemptuous statement.

"Rare display of common sense from The Sun"

Wow, Nintendo Life. Just... wow.

They're only trying to remove a glitch which so happens to concern same-sex relationships, and all of a sudden Nintendo is caught up in political warfare? It's clear that Nintendo is trying to remain as neutral as possible about this; stop evaluating their possible courses of action as taking stances, especially when the article states a definite decision is yet to be confirmed.

For now, this is a glitch, first and foremost. It's vital they correct it. In future, perhaps they'll gauge the reactions from this event and decide whether or not to implement same-sex relationships as a proper feature (which is something I'd love to see, actually).

@ToxorAxiom: My statements on the Wii U's issues prior to the last comment weren't intended for you directly in the first place. I wasn't "accusing you" of anything personally, especially since it is obvious we were approaching this from entirely different wavelengths. I'm confused as to why you're continuing this when it's now so obvious we weren't discussing the same thing from the beginning.

And yes, a moral stance is a personal opinion. It can be influenced by anything from religion to personal tradition - take gay marriage, for example. Believe it or not, there is no universal perception of right and wrong. However, that does not in any way infer that I was agreeing or disagreeing with you or your stance in the first place.

Lastly, this is indeed a public forum and you are free to make a stance - regardless, it is unnecessary of you to force those values as anything more than opinion, much less accuse me of obscuring them.

Now if you'll care to pardon me, I'm no longer interested in continuing this. Let's just agree we have our differences and part ways with our views (and dignity) intact.

@LDXD: I was referring to the Wii U's dire third-party situation overall, not GTA V exclusively. This just happens to be another prominent example.

@ToxorAxiom: I think I made it pretty clear the first time that I'm not interested in discussing my stand on GTA's moral values, much less since it has less to do with the actual issue at hand here that the article presents. This is neither the time nor the place.

It also amuses me that you accuse me of "pulling the wool over people's eyes" when you know nothing of my perspective on GTA or its moral values. I hardly mentioned anything on the subject, in fact. You'd have noticed that if you weren't intent on being so self-righteous over the matter.

@ToxorAxiom: That's your personal opinion of the game, and that's fine. Nobody's forcing you to play it. Nonetheless, don't use that as an excuse to remain in denial of the Wii U's tangible issues right now.

Immoral game or not, everyone regards it as a blockbuster from a business perspective. It's mighty telling when such a franchise doesn't make an appearance on a console.

Have never tried Harvest Moon. Maybe it's about time I did?

@Peach64: I recently completed my first Zelda game (Ocarina of Time 3D) and I can agree with you that it is very linear indeed. I often think though, that that's the most effective way to appreciate its storyline (especially since most of the story-telling itself wasn't immediate).

However, I'd personally like to see an open-world Zelda title one day, though - or at least one with open-world elements. I think there's potential for it with how much has been made of the Zelda universe at this point, and I'm interested to see what Nintendo will do with the upcoming Wii U title. I'd like it to not go the bog-standard "go this way, that way and save Hyrule" route for a change when there's a chance for exploration.

Mm-hmm. So when it's speculated that the Wii U won't be receiving one of the most top-rated third-party franchises in modern gaming, it automatically becomes "immoral crap"? Makes sense.

I don't know what it'll take besides the disinterest of some 20+ third-party studios for you to realise that the Wii U is the problem here.

Developers will always have their opinions on different things in the industry, and I think it's about time we stopped using that to create mindless turmoil among fans every second the opportunity arises.

Furthermore, Insomniac never specified what they defined as "next-gen", much less whether or not it concerned the Wii U's hardware/tech, so I think we need to stop jumping to conclusions here. In fact as far as I can tell, that is the CEO's personal opinion on the Wii U and it doesn't necessarily reflect that of the whole studio.

Personally, I often define a "next-gen" console by its market impact, so by that standard I'd agree the Wii U is not in that category (yet), more so for potent developers like Insomniac. Anyhow, it's a bit of a shame to hear this, as I was hoping we might see something from them ever since they disbanded from Sony.

From what I've seen so far, I'd say Nintendo's on the right path with much of their first-party DLC (NSMB2 and FE:A are good examples to me). It's completely optional, yet is still a valuable contribution to the game's overall enjoyment.

I don't want DLC for the sake of DLC, but I definitely want to see it where applicable. With enough effort, I can see potential for it in games like the next Super Smash Bros. (stages, adventures etc.), though games like Pokémon X/Y would require a bit more thinking. More cities, Pokémon etc. are obvious choices but with time, it'll only become overwhelming and a bit cliché.

So, bottom line: games ought to be finished by launch. DLC should only be an after-thought, and not all games can pull it off.

@bunnyking: Aye, that's exactly the point. They're not exactly projecting the blame on either Nintendo or the Wii U; everyone's aware that the economy isn't at its most favourable, even less so for the games market.

At most, I can see them just pointing out how much that's been affecting the Wii U in particular (even more so with Nintendo's marketing issues), which sucks because they're invested in the console.

Nobody's pointing fingers. It's a mere observation. But as usual...

Nobody's playing "the blame game"; the Wii U has been disappointing for a lot of us thus far, and it's only worse for developers right now. It's not like they're saying the Wii U is destined for hell and fire. They were just reasonably expecting more out of the its sales performance, especially with its launch - weren't we all?

I swear, a lot of fans here can be irrationally sensitive at times.

@LEGEND_MARIOID: Too little. That's how much they made.

@Pikamoon: No. If more Nintendo fans made a public statement and appealed to EA showing substantial interest, I'm sure we'd no longer get run-down ports to pacify us.

@Pikamoon: Then don't complain when EA refuses to support the Wii U, and other third-party developers follow suit. Where there is no market, there is no support.

@LEGEND_MARIOID: They spent money separately on developing on each of those individual systems, so don't collectively group its sales. You're right, it's a port - a high-quality one they spent thousands on developing. They need a realistic profit margin on each individual copy they sell - lowering the price is hardly sensible, unless you want them to eventually suffer the same fate as THQ.

I'm not saying EA aren't d-bags sometimes, but they do need to be smart enough to keep themselves in business. And most importantly, they are essential to part of the Wii U's success with third-parties.

And I need a ginger ale now.

@Pikamoon: Because most of the initial excitement Nintendo fans showed for it was (if not less than) half-hearted. Ergo we can expect a half-hearted port.

If we expect EA to make us a priority, we need to make them a priority first. The Wii U needs them more than they need the Wii U; playing Uncle in this situation is really juvenile and is only hurting us more, to be frank.

@LEGEND_MARIOID: "A fair amount of money"? Spending thousands of dollars to develop a 3DS/Wii U version that likely only a few hundred people will purchase isn't receiving "a fair amount of money". It's a worthless investment.

Remember how Criterion went to the ends of the earth to secure the definitive version of NFS:MW for the Wii U? Well, if my memory serves correctly, the game only sold around 10,000 copies on the platform.

Unlike Sony and Microsoft in the past, Nintendo hasn't established a secure-enough audience for EA to continuously consider (and this fact has little to do with the Wii U's current install base figures). Believe it or not, fans are not entitled to these things - support is relative to demand. The only spiteful knobs I see here are the majority of us.

_{I may or may not be done.}

@SilentHunter382: The only way they'll ever show support for the Wii U is if you show support for their games. This is no situation for fans to be collectively bested by their egos; this is business.

Bottom line, if you don't want my game, I won't give you my game. This industry survives on profits and investments, not love and unicorns.

Hey, Wii U owners: the resultant forced apathy that will inevitably amount from this is only going to drive EA further away. EA wouldn't have a problem with the Wii U if you didn't have a problem with EA.

GO BACK THIS WITH YOUR LIFE-SAVINGS IMMEDIATELY.

I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet, for seemingly obvious reasons.

Personally, I also think we need to stop attributing the lack of third-party will for the Wii U to all this misled "next-gen/not next-gen" propaganda.

Before we start discussing this ever again, 90% of people in this comment section ought to try buying a mobile game that costs more than $0.99.

Never tried the Shin Megami Tensei franchise before, but it's been peaking my interest lately. If I'm not already overloaded this year, I might pick this up.

The last time I heard about Beyblade, I was in Year 3 surrounded by 7-year-old boys, for the most part.

_{...I still have my collection somewhere too.}

@MANIAC911: Technically speaking, the software variety of a console can also be considered an influential market factor (if not in the conventional sense). When done right, most games demonstrate the demographic and differentiation of their respective console to consumers and developers alike.

The Wii U has done neither of those things - that's why it's struggling. It hasn't established one single identity for itself and focused on it. Nintendo's trying to hard to reclaim the core audience it lost with the Wii while trying to salvage as much as it gained in the same generation; it's not working.

He bears his title well. _{But I got there first.}